Pages

Sunday, September 28, 2014

I don’t have studied works for you today. Today I have something all together
different. An observation, perhaps and
I’m not quite sure where it is going. As
I sit here beside the open window, I hear the wind rustling through the tree
leaves and I see the pale light of a just rising sun beginning to etch all of
my world in a fine gold and silvery light.
Consciousness in tact, as always and ever it is, I observe the things in
my world just now.

The breeze is strong enough to tickle the wind chimes outside
my front door into motion sending out a beautiful tinkling. The air not quite crisp but cool sends waves
of sound that include the chirping of birds, the vehicles on the freeway a half
block away already en route to some physical destination and the sound of that
something I can’t quite put my finger on.
The former, I’m certain are generated physically from my perception of the
physical world. The latter, I’m not sure
anyone hears but me sometimes. I’m not
sure how to define this frequency, vibration or sound I perceive at times. It varies in pitch or tone. Sometimes it is steady and sometimes only
just there a moment. Sometimes it isn’t
there at all. When I find the tone
generators online, they produce a near similar effect with one thing missing,
the feeling that naturally accompanies what I hear. It isn’t there all the
time but when it is, it flicks on like a light switch and its pulse is strong
enough to disrupt all thought and action.
It is strong enough for me to feel its accompanying vibration from
inside out and yet another… a feeling, non-physical, I cannot define.

The sensation of sound, vibration or frequency (or all 3 as
the case may very well be), is typically preceded by an invisible barrier that
seems to enshroud my being temporarily.
I liken it to an absence or distancing of perception. It is the best way I can think to define
it. What
is this, or It’sback, I often say to myself when I
encounter it off on and on throughout my days and weeks now. What is this sound, frequency or vibration
that it is I am hearing? Sometimes, at
work, I’ll be mid-sentence and the energy flicks on and I’ll notice a sensation
about the ears or maybe it’s the hair on the back of my neck standing up, I’m
still not sure. I feel things around me
and as crazy as that sounds, it brings me a great sense of peace. There is a knowing in the feeling…that I am
not alone. It is so very hard to
understand until you’ve experienced it and you’ve noticed the difference
between tinnitus and this sensation or a barometric pressure change and this
shift in perception. This is
non-physical, this sensation. Again, it
is a bit hard to adequately explain. But
I wonder even more, what is it for? Why
am I experiencing it at all?

Some very quick searches for information have left me with
an explanation that this perception, this thing that I am experiencing is
merely the Aum or Ascension Symptoms. I
think I could find more solace in the meaning behind the Aum in, “The Sound of
the Center of the Universe.” Is it really
even a sound if I’m hearing it inside of me?
This thing, whatever it is, has a steady-state frequency that gives off
a sense of awakening and it isn’t always the same tone. Sometimes the hertz are well up into 5 digits
and beyond and are joined by harmonizing tones. With all due respect for the perspective of
others, I don’t “believe” in ascension
symptoms that run the gamut of every symptom normally attributed to stress,
menopause or the common cold. I see no
evidence to support it so see that as a hypothesis not yet tested. Another reason I don’t share the belief in
the concept of ascension symptoms is
that I know that we are already awake and a part of us so very Consciously (Big
“C”) aware. You can blame your anxiety
and bad days on a thing but I can’t. I
can see there is nothing to blame in this universe. If I feel a certain way, there is an
experience I intentionally sought. If I
hadn’t, it would not be. I have enough
self-case studies in my time from a variety of topics to support this contention
at least in enough areas to convince my self.

I was once merely an observer of physical life but something
changed many years ago following my NDE (Near Death Experience) and then
deepened in the years leading up to my Big C Consciousness awakening following
a surgery and some of the most intense life lessons I’ve ever contended with and
that awakening continues. I don’t see it
as an ascension, I see it as remembrance
of who and what I truly am. And each
will come to this conclusion in his or her own time. There is a knowing that accompanies this
feeling and even the non-physically perceived sound that I have wondered about
all of these years. There is a part of
me that knows what this frequency or vibration is and why it seems I “hear” it. In a very simple way, with intent, I am
merely remembering…remembering home.
Home is not a place that we try to put into the constructs of our
third-dimensional framework. Rather home
is a state of being, a state of remembering the connected nature of all things
and not only remembering but also feeling the connected nature of all
things. There is nothing more beautiful
in this world. That feeling to me
connects directly with the feelings evoked by watching a beautiful fiery pink,
silvery gold and orange sunrise over the mountain tops framed in low-lying
clouds or even the same colors, ever more vibrant as the sun sinks slowly into
the powerful ocean. If you’ve not felt
these things and their accompanying vibrations then my words won’t do them
justice by any measure…for there is no measure or words I have to truly define
the powerful beauty of the experience.

I cannot prove my experience with this non-physical
perception or feeling may be a better
word. I think that others share this
experience I am trying to define who have found themselves in a similar state
of feeling the Consciously Connected nature of all things that leaves them in
awe, blissful and filled with compassionate love and deeper understanding. If you have encountered this feeling or
something similar to what I have been trying to articulate here, I would very
much like to hear about your perspectives or experiences. Write me, if you’d like to share. Jaiehart@gmail.com.

Blessings of Love and Greater Awareness in the Wholeness of
your Beautiful Being!

Saturday, September 27, 2014

Life is purely amazing and its purpose for each individual,
so very different. It seems we are
naturally predisposed to selecting “sides” or “beliefs” in terms of how we wish
to orient our focus of living. There are
many philosophical, metaphysical and psychological “isms” through which we
could choose to view the world. Many of
us do this naturally without identifying consciously with these various schools
of thought or beliefs but they seemingly form thoughts and actions within our
consciousness through our daily interactions with our follow brothers and
sisters. So what are these main “isms”
that define the filters from which many of us align our beliefs? A little research through the World Wide Web
brings us the following to consider from the world of philosophy, which also
includes at least two others of interest to me personally, psychology and
metaphysics. Let me share with you a
little of my quick research to make my point:

Idealism

From The Basics of
Philosophy online resource, we have Idealism described as follows:

Idealism
is the metaphysical and epistemological doctrine that ideas or thoughts make up fundamental reality. Essentially, it is any
philosophy which argues that the only thing actually knowable is consciousness
(or the contents of consciousness), whereas we never can be sure that matter or anything in the outside world really exists. Thus, the only real things are mental entities, not physical things
(which exist only in the sense that they are perceived).

From this filter, we have alignment (at least at a very
basic level) from among some of our great thinkers throughout history. Some names you might be familiar with like
Plato, Aristotle, Rene Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant. Each took the basic framework and added to it
their own unique and interesting perspectives (to say the least) and brought
forth interesting ideas, thoughts, arguments and theories about the world in
which we find ourselves and the way we organize our thoughts about existence. I can see some of my own thoughts and beliefs
through the filer of Idealism (but please understand that my perspective is
that belief is an untested hypothesis which I don’t necessarily hold as truth).

Realism

From the very same source as the above, we find Realism
defined as:

Realism, at it simplest and most general, is the view that entities of a certain type have an objective reality, a reality that is
completely ontologically independent
of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc. Thus, entities
(including abstract concepts and
universals as well as more concrete objects) have an existence
independent of the act of perception,
and independent of their names.

The doctrine had its beginnings with Pre-Socratic philosophers like Thales, Heraclitus and Parmenides, but its definitive formulation
was that of Plato and his theory of Forms . . .

Aligned with this
filter and expanding it further to their own perspectives we find the great
minds of St. Augustine, St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas. These individuals held very interesting
perspectives and theories on our origins, the existence of God as well as
additional impacts on critical thinking.
I can see merit to the filter of this particular perspective or at least
understand some of the frameworks and concepts as well as many other “isms.”

Pragmatism

The former views originated much further back in our human
timeline than pragmatism. As the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy says
of Pragmatism:

Pragmatism is a philosophical
movement that includes those who claim that an ideology or proposition is true
if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in
the practical consequences of accepting it, and that unpractical ideas are to
be rejected. Pragmatism originated in the United States during the latter
quarter of the nineteenth century. Although it has significantly influenced
non-philosophers—notably in the fields of law, education, politics, sociology,
psychology, and literary criticism—this article deals with it only as a
movement within philosophy.

The term “pragmatism” was first
used in print to designate a philosophical outlook about a century ago when
William James (1842-1910) pressed the word into service during an 1898 address
entitled “Philosophical Conceptions and Practical Results,” delivered at the
University of California (Berkeley). James scrupulously swore, however, that
the term had been coined almost three decades earlier by his compatriot and
friend C.
S. Peirce (1839-1914). (Peirce, eager to distinguish his doctrines
from the views promulgated by James, later relabeled his own position
“pragmaticism”—a name, he said, “ugly enough to be safe from kidnappers.”) The
third major figure in the classical pragmatist pantheon is John Dewey
(1859-1952), whose wide-ranging writings had considerable impact on American
intellectual life for a half-century. After Dewey, however, pragmatism lost
much of its momentum.

This is yet another understandable filter from which to view
various aspects of the things in life that we face or contemplate. I will neither argue for nor against it for I
find merit in or at least understanding of many filters and “isms” very
generally speaking. Again, I’ll say, that
doesn’t necessarily mean that I dogmatically subscribe to this filter or others
alone.

Existentialism

From the same source as the above, we find Existentialism. An excerpt to help with understanding is:

Existentialism is a
catch-all term for those philosophers who consider the nature of the human
condition as a key philosophical problem and who share the view that this
problem is best addressed through ontology. This very broad definition will be
clarified by discussing seven key themes that existentialist thinkers address.
Those philosophers considered existentialists are mostly from the continent of
Europe, and date from the 19th and 20th centuries.
Outside philosophy, the existentialist movement is probably the most well-known
philosophical movement, and at least two of its members are among the most
famous philosophical personalities and widely read philosophical authors. It
has certainly had considerable influence outside philosophy, for example on
psychological theory and on the arts. Within philosophy, though, it is safe to
say that this loose movement considered as a whole
has not had a great impact, although individuals or ideas counted within it
remain important. Moreover, most of the philosophers conventionally grouped
under this heading either never used, or actively disavowed, the term
‘existentialist’. Even Sartre himself once said: “Existentialism? I don’t know
what that is.” So, there is a case to be made that the term – insofar as it
leads us to ignore what is distinctive about philosophical positions and to
conflate together significantly different ideas – does more harm than good.

The seven key themes noted in the above
excerpt are listed below. You might
check the source and do a little reading when you have a moment. You might find these very interesting:

Philosophy as a Way
of Life

Anxiety and
Authenticity

Freedom

Situatedness

Existence

Irrationality/Absurdity

The Crowd

As with the above “isms,” we find some
of the interesting thinkers of more recent times such as Soren Kierkegaard,
Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir and
Albert Camus.

Philosophy is rich with ideas and
theories concerning existence and consciousness and perhaps that is why I’m so
drawn to it. The convergences of all the
various aspects these filters hold exist within our every day thoughts. I cannot help but wonder about why it is we
must align with a singular thought process at all, however. As others before me have come to similar
conclusions, I won’t argue about the basic human need to belong to something
and to find purpose within it through belief alone. One of my other favorite topics was born from
Philosophy when Wilhelm Wundt in the second half of the 1800’s introduced the
concept that Psychology should become its own discipline. (Discovering Psychology, 4)

There are many more “isms” through
which we began to understand our frameworks.
These would include:

Structuralism
from Edward B. Titchener (1867-1927):
“Structuralism became the first major school of thought in
psychology. Structuralism held that even
our most complex conscious experiences could be broken down into elemental structures,
or component parts, of sensations and feelings,” (Discovering Psychology, 4).

Functionalism
from William James (1842-1910): “Functionalism
stressed the importance of how behavior functions to allow people and animals
to adapt to their environments. Unlike
structuralists, functionalists did not limit their methods to
introspection. They expanded the scope
of psychology research to include direct observation of living creatures in
natural settings,” (Discovering
Psychology, 5).

Behaviorism
from John B. Watson (1878-1958):
Behaviorism “. . . rejected the emphasis on consciousness promoted by
structuralism and functionalism. It also
flatly rejected Freudian notions about unconscious influences. Instead, behaviorism contended that
psychology should focus its scientific investigations strictly on overt
behavior – observable behaviors that could be objectively measured and verified,”(Discovering Psychology, 6)

There are more “isms” than I could
possibly list in one simple article, which was my true intent. Just for fun, I will add one more “ism.” The actual definition of “ism” which comes to
us from The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

Full Definition of
ISM:

1 : a distinctive
doctrine, cause or theory

2 : an oppressive and
especially discriminatory attitude or belief.

So, as you can see, we humans with all
of our “isms” are an interesting lot. I
deeply appreciate all of the “isms” that are and have been contemplated, the
great minds that created them and the reasons for their creations. It reflects to me, the multifaceted aspects
of our conscious existence.
Consciousness is what we are, I firmly believe. We have so many isms to contend with as we
live our lives but here is an interesting thought, we don’t have to subscribe
to any particular belief at all. We do
not have to hold an ism as truth
unless it is sufficiently proven to be a definitive truth to us in some way. I see all of the isms, philosophies and
theories as ways in which we question our existence, the reality of the world
and perhaps, the existence of Source (or God, if you will). What if we are that Source in all of its multifaceted concepts and constructs?
Maybe it matters less which field of hard or soft-science or other
fields of thought you subscribe to and more how these things help you achieve
that which you sought to achieve in this life?
Not one of us has an answer that would be definitively true for the
unique and amazing aspect of consciousness projected in the physical reality we
acknowledge here in this time that is you.

I think that what we are all attempting
to define is consciousness (with a little “c” referring to the egoic aspect) and
Consciousness (with a big “C” referring to the quantum Whole). From my own work, The Ego is the Veil:

Consciousness is only
partially discovered and is certainly only a partially understood frontier that
has the potential to neatly knit everything we see, feel and experience together. With further exploration of this frontier, I
think we may find some very exciting things about our existence here in this
frame. I think also that the study of
consciousness cannot be contained as valid from the perspective of only one or
a handful of the various applied science and other disciplines. As mentioned before, each discipline can only
define consciousness from within the confines and constructs of their academic
perspectives. It will take some fearless
pioneers unafraid to break down the walls, barriers, biases and prejudices
working hand in hand to help us better understand the nature of what it truly
is. I am not satisfied by the biological
constructs alone. I am unsatisfied with
the neuro-biological constructs alone. I
am unsatisfied with the philosophical and psychological constructs alone and I
am still as yet unsatisfied with the theological and metaphysical constructs
alone. I think if we work together we
can find the common themes to all the various disciplines, come together, share
notes, establish and test new hypotheses and attempt to draw no conclusions
about what it (consciousness) truly is. (82)

In my own works I posit in a similar
vein as Freud in that the ego is where consciousness meets physical reality and
that creates not the typical dualist thought but that ego and veil (as in ego
consciousness and veil, Cosmic Consciousness) are one and the same. Everything we see, feel and experience is a multifaceted aspect of Consciousness. I
don’t see consciousness in terms of the hard or easy question or problem but
rather I see it as the entirety of the framework from which we exist. It is because of this that I feel we struggle
so much with our limited human words to define it. It is more than words or a thing…it is also a
feeling, which is beyond emotion and an energy that is beyond our limited
sensory perceptions alone.

We, in a way,
are like tiny ants trying to define the entirety of the Universe. It’s too big and too much to take in with
limited frameworks and premises. We’re
all right and wrong in our thoughts in some regard concerning our consciousness
and existence. Maybe we view that which
we attempt to define from filters that are limited to begin with? We are as multifaceted as consciousness is and cannot be singly defined with any amount
of accuracy in our entirety from the physical, to the mind, to consciousness or
why all of these things neatly come together in the human beings that we are. We can define component parts and operations,
we can run simulations and experiments of thoughts and theories and we can test
what is true and what is not based on repeated success in our testing of
theories from the perspective of some ism
to prove our view. But what if it is the
view itself that creates the outcome?
What if it is our focus and intent that creates everything?

We are amazing to put it simply; every
single one of us with our goals and ambitions, our thoughts and our
dreams. We are actively participating in
this huge Conscious (Big “C”) experience with conscious (little “c”) thoughts
and ideas. We will not find the doorways
of true understanding through thought alone no matter which discipline or “ism”
we filter it through. It will take something
more akin to the feeling (not read emotion) of the true expanse of our
awareness to understand. More than mere
belief, I have faith that with all of the explorations from the past, those of
the present and even those yet to come, we will arrive at expanded Conscious Awareness
in the bigger sense. In a way, perhaps multifaceted ways, we are already there.

Sunday, September 21, 2014

As part my
research into my latest book, Exploring the Conscious Self, I came to an understanding of the connections between
Metaphysics, Consciousness and what we may refer to as the 7th Sense.While the 7th sense may have only
recently been introduced in literature, I think it’s a topic that begs greater
understanding.We can come to this
understanding better, I think, through the philosophies outlined in Metaphysics
and Consciousness.For those who may
be new to the topics of Metaphysics and Consciousness, let alone how it’s all
connected through the 7th sense and beyond, I wanted to provide you
with some information.I’m going to use
a couple of different articles to explain the basis from which the concepts
shared here operate and I may stray a bit from the purely academic purview but
I have a specific reason for that or mission, if you will.

My mission is
to help with understanding.Understanding is a key component of our evolution.To understand a thing transfers the fleeting
and obscuring perspective of mere “belief” to that of knowledge, in this
author’s opinion.So, I will go on
sharing some bits and pieces of wonderful articles and sources for your
perusal.Rather than list each citation
in a bibliography at the end of the article, I’m going to include the source
with a link after each quoted entry so you can immediately go to those sources
and review them for yourselves.I found
these sources more than informative and wanted only to share them for their
wonderful perspectives.Within each
source cited and included, there are numerous other sources for the truly
curious to explore and I hope that you do explore.Learning is an amazing capability humanity
holds and the more we learn the more we can expand from a limited little “c”
consciousness and move into a more awake and aware Big “C” Consciousness.

Each article is
titled as the authors so titled them and sub-headings were included along with
some commentary of my own.I hope you
enjoy this piece and that it brings you even more food for thought on
consciousness and its exploration through philosophy and metaphysics.

Peter van
Inwagen provides an indepth look into Metaphysics for The Standaford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. He points
out in the very first paragraph that these words we toss about in conversation
are not so easily defined or understood.Often times the word “Metaphysics” is confused with the fringe aspects
of esotericism or the New Age Movement alone.Yes we have some souls that do end up being poster-children for the less
than perfect part of the drive-through spirituality aspects of the New Age.But they don’t represent the whole of the New
Age movement.Just to be clear. Metaphysics has been around for a while and
Philosophers have contemplated the concepts for a long time.Set aside any preconceived notions you might
have of Metaphysics or your understanding of Consciousness and explore from the
perspectives of those who have studied much in their respective fields.I’m grateful their work exists and that more
join the ranks daily to help us define this framework from which we live our
lives.Through definition and exploration,
we increase our knowledge and understanding.In my view, it is of vital importance that we move away from states of
pure belief alone and seek to transfer belief or faith into something more concrete,
knowledge.With knowledge we are armed
with what we need to create for ourselves a better sense of well-being along
with a sense of intent and purpose for existing here right now.So, on with Mr. van Iwagen’s introduction to
his article on Metaphysics:

Metaphysics

It
is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and Medieval philosophers might
have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by
its subject matter: metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such”
or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change.” It is no longer
possible to define metaphysics that way, and for two reasons. First, a
philosopher who denied the existence of those things that had once been seen as
constituting the subject-matter of metaphysics—first causes or unchanging
things—would now be considered to be making thereby a metaphysical assertion.
Secondly, there are many philosophical problems that are now considered to be
metaphysical problems (or at least partly metaphysical problems) that are in no
way related to first causes or unchanging things; the problem of free will, for
example, or the problem of the mental and the physical.

In his
article on Metaphysics, Edward Craig connects my favorite subjects, Metaphysics
and Consciousness and begins to outline some of the inherent challenges in
understanding them.But it is this
understanding we must begin to engage in if we have a desire to escape the
mundane drudgery of existence and realize there is a greater and more valuable
purpose to our existence.Life is multifaceted and I have come to find that no one discipline or approach is
enough to bring the fullness of understanding necessary for my vision and
mission.So, on with Edward Craig’s
article from the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Metaphysics

Metaphysics is a
broad area of philosophy marked out by two types of inquiry. The first aims to
be the most general investigation possible into the nature of reality: are
there principles applying to everything that is real, to all that is? – if we
abstract from the particular nature of existing things that which distinguishes
them from each other, what can we know about them merely in virtue of the fact
that they exist? The second type of inquiry seeks to uncover what is ultimately
real, frequently offering answers in sharp contrast to our everyday experience
of the world. Understood in terms of these two questions, metaphysics is very
closely related to ontology, which is usually taken to involve both ‘what is
existence (being)?’ and ‘what (fundamentally distinct) types of thing exist?’
(see Ontology).

While the prior excerpts on Metaphysics are short, if you
visit the links provided and review, they look deeply into the topics, present
the facts, the challenges and the multi-faceted subdivisions in the
philosophies related to the topic and even enter the arena of Consciousness
which is all part of the equation for understanding.Below, I bring to you an article on
Consciousness from Robert Van Gulick, for the Standford Encyclopedia on
Philosophy.I’ve included several
excerpts from his article as they point to a specific aspect of my own focus on
Metaphysics and Connected Consciousness.The author of this work points out many facts and various challenges in
pinpointing precisely what Consciousness is.The fact that we can label only certain aspects in specific ways and not
the whole of it does not bar us from gaining understanding.Sometimes grasping the edges of a framework
is enough to move forward in transcending belief and moving into
knowledge.Have a look at Robert’s article
beyond just the limited segments of it that I’ve included.It’s worth a read if you’d like to better
understand what it is we’re dealing with when we contemplate Consciousness.

Consciousness

Perhaps no aspect of mind is more
familiar or more puzzling than consciousness and our conscious experience of
self and world. The problem of consciousness is arguably the central issue in
current theorizing about the mind. Despite the lack of any agreed upon theory
of consciousness, there is a widespread, if less than universal, consensus that
an adequate account of mind requires a clear understanding of it and its place
in nature. We need to understand both what consciousness is and how it relates
to other, nonconscious, aspects of reality.

The early
twentieth century saw the eclipse of consciousness from scientific psychology,
especially in the United States with the rise of behaviorism (Watson 1924,
Skinner 1953) though movements such as Gestalt psychology kept it a matter of
ongoing scientific concern in Europe (Köhler 1929, Köffka 1935). In the 1960s,
the grip of behaviorism weakened with the rise of cognitive psychology and its
emphasis on information processing and the modeling of internal mental
processes (Neisser 1965, Gardiner 1985). However, despite the renewed emphasis
on explaining cognitive capacities such as memory, perception and language
comprehension, consciousness remained a largely neglected topic for several
further decades.

In the 1980s and
90s there was a major resurgence of scientific and philosophical research into
the nature and basis of consciousness (Baars 1988, Dennett 1991, Penrose 1989,
1994, Crick 1994, Lycan 1987, 1996, Chalmers 1996). Once consciousness was back
under discussion, there was a rapid proliferation of research with a flood of
books and articles, as well as the introduction of specialty journals (The
Journal of Consciousness Studies, Consciousness and Cognition, Psyche),
professional societies (Association for the Scientific Study of
Consciousness—ASSC) and annual conferences devoted exclusively to its
investigation (Toward a Science of Consciousness, ASSC).

Problems of Consciousness

The task of
understanding consciousness is an equally diverse project. Not only do many
different aspects of mind count as conscious in some sense, each is also open
to various respects in which it might be explained or modeled. Understanding
consciousness involves a multiplicity not only of explananda but also of
questions that they pose and the sorts of answers they require. At the risk of
oversimplifying, the relevant questions can be gathered under three crude
rubrics as the What, How, and Why questions:

·The Descriptive Question: What
is consciousness? What are its principal features? And by what means can they
be best discovered, described and modeled?

·The Explanatory Question: How
does consciousness of the relevant sort come to exist? Is it a primitive aspect
of reality, and if not how does (or could) consciousness in the relevant
respect arise from or be caused by nonconscious entities or processes?

·The Functional Question: Why
does consciousness of the relevant sort exist? Does it have a function, and if
so what it is it? Does it act causally and if so with sorts of effects? Does it
make a difference to the operation of systems in which it is present, and if so
why and how?

The three
questions focus respectively on describing the features of consciousness,
explaining its underlying basis or cause, and explicating its role or value.
The divisions among the three are of course somewhat artificial, and in
practice the answers one gives to each will depend in part on what one says
about the others. One can not, for example, adequately answer the what question
and describe the main features of consciousness without addressing the why
issue of its functional role within systems whose operations it affects. Nor
could one explain how the relevant sort of consciousness might arise from
nonconscious processes unless one had a clear account of just what features had
to be caused or realized to count as producing it. Those caveats
notwithstanding, the three-way division of questions provides a useful
structure for articulating the overall explanatory project and for assessing
the adequacy of particular theories or models of consciousness.

Causal status of consciousness

Perhaps
the most basic issue posed by any version of the Why question is whether or not
consciousness of the relevant sort has any causal impact at all. If it has no
effects and makes no causal difference whatsoever, then it would seem unable to
play any significant role in the systems or organisms in which it is present,
thus undercutting at the outset most inquiries about its possible value. Nor
can the threat of epiphenomenal irrelevance be simply dismissed as an obvious
non-option, since at least some forms of consciousness have been seriously
alleged in the recent literature to lack causal status. (See the entry on epiphenomenalism.)

Such worries have been raised especially with regard to qualia and qualitative
consciousness (Huxley 1874, Jackson 1982, Chalmers 1996), but challenges have
also been leveled against the causal status of other sorts including
meta-mental consciousness (Velmans 1991).

Both
metaphysical and empirical arguments have been given in support of such claims.
Among the former are those that appeal to intuitions about the conceivability
and logical possibility of zombies, i.e., of beings whose behavior, functional
organization, and physical structure down to the molecular level are identical
to those of normal human agents but who lack any qualia or qualitative
consciousness. Some (Kirk 1970, Chalmers 1996) assert such beings are possible
in worlds that share all our physical laws, but others deny it (Dennett 1991,
Levine 2001). If they are possible in such worlds, then it would seem to follow
that even in our world, qualia do not affect the course of physical events
including those that constitute our human behaviors. If those events unfold in
the same way whether or not qualia are present, then qualia appear to be inert
or epiphenomenal at least with respect to events in the physical world.
However, such arguments and the zombie intuitions on which they rely are
controversial and their soundness remains in dispute (Searle 1992, Yablo 1998,
Balog 1999).

Arguments
of a far more empirical sort have challenged the causal status of meta-mental
consciousness, at least in so far as its presence can be measured by the
ability to report on one's mental state. Scientific evidence is claimed to show
that consciousness of that sort is neither necessary for any type of mental
ability nor does it occur early enough to act as a cause of the acts or
processes typically thought to be its effects (Velmans 1991). According to
those who make such arguments, the sorts of mental abilities that are typically
thought to require consciousness can all be realized unconsciously in the
absence of the supposedly required self-awareness.

Theories of
consciousness

In
response to the What, How and Why questions many theories of consciousness have
been proposed in recent years. However, not all theories of consciousness are
theories of the same thing. They vary not only in the specific sorts of
consciousness they take as their object, but also in their theoretical aims.

Perhaps
the largest division is between general metaphysical theories that aim to
locate consciousness in the overall ontological scheme of reality and more
specific theories that offer detailed accounts of its nature, features and
role. The line between the two sorts of theories blurs a bit, especially in so
far as many specific theories carry at least some implicit commitments on the
more general metaphysical issues. Nonetheless, it is useful to keep the
division in mind when surveying the range of current theoretical offerings.

Metaphysical
theories of consciousness

General
metaphysical theories offer answers to the conscious version of the mind-body
problem, “What is the ontological status of consciousness relative to the world
of physical reality?” The available responses largely parallel the standard
mind-body options including the main versions of dualism and physicalism.

Specific
Theories of Consciousness

Although
there are many general metaphysical/ontological theories of consciousness, the
list of specific detailed theories about its nature is even longer and more
diverse. No brief survey could be close to comprehensive, but six main types of
theories may help to indicate the basic range of options: higher-order theories,
representational theories, interpretative narrative theories, cognitive
theories, neural theories, quantum theories and nonphysical theories. The
categories are not mutually exclusive; for example, many cognitive theories
also propose a neural substrate for the relevant cognitive processes.
Nonetheless grouping them in the seven classes provides a basic overview.

Rocco
Genarro also provides an interesting exploration into Consciousness within his
article titled “Consciousness” published online with the Internet Encyclopedia
of Philosophy.This author underscores
the challenges quite common in defining consciousness within his article.Please do not stop at the limited segments
quoted for purposes of information below.Take a moment if you will and review the more detailed discussion
provided by the author.

Consciousness:

Explaining the nature of
consciousness is one of the most important and perplexing areas of philosophy,
but the concept is notoriously ambiguous. The abstract noun “consciousness” is
not frequently used by itself in the contemporary literature, but is originally
derived from the Latin con (with) and scire (to know).
Perhaps the most commonly used contemporary notion of a conscious mental state
is captured by Thomas Nagel’s famous “what it is like” sense (Nagel 1974). When
I am in a conscious mental state, there is something it is like for me to be in
that state from the subjective or first-person point of view. But how are we to
understand this? For instance, how is the conscious mental state related to the
body? Can consciousness be explained in terms of brain activity? What makes a
mental state be a conscious mental state? The problem of consciousness is
arguably the most central issue in current philosophy of mind and is also
importantly related to major traditional topics in metaphysics, such as the
possibility of immortality and the belief in free will. This article focuses on
Western theories and conceptions of consciousness, especially as found in
contemporary analytic philosophy of mind.

Quantum Approaches

Finally,
there are those who look deep beneath the neural level to the field of quantum
mechanics, basically the study of sub-atomic particles, to find the key to
unlocking the mysteries of consciousness. The bizarre world of quantum physics
is quite different from the deterministic world of classical physics, and a
major area of research in its own right. Such authors place the locus of
consciousness at a very fundamental physical level. This somewhat radical,
though exciting, option is explored most notably by physicist Roger Penrose
(1989, 1994) and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff (1998). The basic idea is
that consciousness arises through quantum effects which occur in subcellular
neural structures known as microtubules, which are structural proteins in cell
walls. There are also other quantum approaches which aim to explain the
coherence of consciousness (Marshall and Zohar 1990) or use the “holistic”
nature of quantum mechanics to explain consciousness (Silberstein 1998, 2001).
It is difficult to assess these somewhat exotic approaches at present. Given
the puzzling and often very counterintuitive nature of quantum physics, it is
unclear whether such approaches will prove genuinely scientifically valuable
methods in explaining consciousness. One concern is simply that these authors
are trying to explain one puzzling phenomenon (consciousness) in terms of
another mysterious natural phenomenon (quantum effects). Thus, the thinking
seems to go, perhaps the two are essentially related somehow and other
physicalistic accounts are looking in the wrong place, such as at the
neuro-chemical level. Although many attempts to explain consciousness often
rely of conjecture or speculation, quantum approaches may indeed lead the field
along these lines. Of course, this doesn’t mean that some such theory isn’t
correct. One exciting aspect of this approach is the resulting
interdisciplinary interest it has generated among physicists and other
scientists in the problem of consciousness.

It
seems to me upon review of my two favorite topics that the theories are
seemingly endless and often remain theories with only bits and pieces found to
be empirical and the rest relegated to the land of the forever hypothesized or
a simple “Yes,” “No” and “Maybe” approach in terms of understanding.But this doesn’t prevent us from understanding.More and more disciplines are joining the
discussion to ask the questions and seek to ask and answer them from different
perspectives.But what if we are all
defining a thing from the outset with a limited starting point?What if it is language itself that prevents
our full and complete understanding?What if Consciousness is as Freud intimated concerning the ego as that
part of consciousness that meets physical reality?What if it is a matter of a limited language
with which we are trying to define Consciousness to begin with?What if Consciousness is not a thing to
describe but is what we are and the varied and many striations of it exist in
the realms of the unconscious aspects of our existence and the multiple
dimensions beyond our limited 3rd dimensional points of focus?What if the “feeling” part of our inner-most
connected nature knows exactly what consciousness is?Maybe we cannot fully comprehend
consciousness with the mind and the words it create alone.Perhaps, the understanding comes through
another sense.The 7th sense.What if that observer aspect of our
consciousness as pointed out so well by Echard Tolle in his work, The Power of
Now, is an expanded portion of our Consciousness that remains ever and always
connected to Source and that Source is what promotes the motion of our being
and our impetus for existing and living or feeling our way through life?That “feeling our way through life” is the 7th
sense.

We
might as well begin to ask other questions from a deeper level than the
superficial of why do I feel (emotion) and why do I feel (intuition)?There seems to be a deeper and more
intangible aspect to consider and many have considered as you can conclude yourself
by researching the many academic and non-academic papers out there on these
topics.Our Consciousness is expanding
into a new and decidedly different experience of life on Earth through the
introduction of practices such as meditation and mindfulness.Why are these things having the impact that
they are?Why are they making us “feel”
different and often more connected and whole than just the superficial egoic or
little “c” consciousness of existence?There is a purpose and there is a reason…call it a hunch but what about
that “hunch?”What about that inner
knowing that puts it into motion rising to the surface for further
exploration?What if we are trying to
think our way through a matter that can only be felt and I am not talking about
emotion.I am talking about an
all-together different sense…maybe it’s the 7th sense.Just some food for thought.

Saturday, September 20, 2014

Oh the ways we give it away so
unaware. If only we knew the keys to prevent ourselves from giving away
our power at every turn, we might be better able to address our human
interactions in this life. You see, there will always exist those who
know no other way to exist than to intimidate and manipulate others for their
power (not realizing they have it within). There too will always be those
of us who too willingly give it away without thinking or realizing. We are not taught this subject in main stream education but maybe we should be. Here are some ways
to know when you have given your power away and I put them in no particular
order of importance:

1. Victim thought processes or identification.

2. Blame thought processes or identification.

3. Dependency thought processes or identification.

4. Manipulating thought processes or identification.

5. Intimidating thought processes or identification.

6. Judgmental thought processes or identification.

7. Persecuting thought processes or identification.

8. Negative self-thoughts and perceptions.

9. Vengeful thoughts and identification.

Do you begin to see where I am going
maybe even just a little? The moment we have given in to any of the above
thought processes, beliefs, actions or identification, we have diminished our
own power and given it away either through holding a false belief or a fear
that we created in response to some kind of external stimulus that it was
actually we who created to begin with. No, this is not a blame the victim
thought process and if that is what you take from this so far, I must ask you
to go much deeper than the superficial egoic mind to understand. Going
deeper within to feel for understanding will actually raise you above your ego
that believes that it always must be right, perfect, save face, be the most,
the best, the whatever anyone else may think of as cool and wonderful. We
have to get beyond these things in order for us to begin to dust off the
emotional debris we’ve collected inside of us through our lack of awareness
that keeps our truth hidden from view. We have to learn to see the above as messages to us from the heart of our spirit.

First and foremost, we are powerful
always in all ways all the time. It is only when we choose not to be
powerful that we sink into the dramas of the world that we momentarily think
have more significant meaning than they really do. Going back a bit
further to form a framework for you from which you may begin to understand, you
are here, believe it or not, to experience and experience life in ways YOU
choose. Yes, you choose and there is no room in your choices really for
judgment, blame, seeking perfection, to be right, better, best, etc. without understanding what these things are for. These are merely road maps or sign posts that it's time to pay attention. Truly, you
can give your power away through these things if you want to and it is neither wrong nor right but I'd like you simply to know that don’t have
to. It is a choice.

Some things don’t seem like choices at
all. Some things feel entirely thrust upon us quite unexpectedly and it
is way too easy to get caught up in identifying with the victim or blaming
activities in order to vent your way through an experience. It wastes
your precious energy to engage in such thinking and sometimes acting. It
takes less energy and promotes a greater sense of balance for you to attempt to
seek understanding for your own choices (whether you realize you made them or
not). Bad things happen to bad people. Bad things happen to good
people too. The judgment of “bad” is just that, a judgment and it is a
judgment most often based on a false premise or belief. When you begin to
understand that we are all part of the whole of life, you start to think about
things a little differently. At some point you begin to disconnect from
the world of victims and villains and start to instead embrace the world as it
is through compassion and seeking understanding of what you really intended in
your creation of this dramatic experience or that one. You had an
intent. You just can’t recall it.

Please understand as I write these words that I in no way intend for anyone to disregard emotion. We are humans and emotion is part of our existence in this 3rd dimensional reality. You must process your emotions. This article is about helping you see emotion for what it is, understand it, how it is created and through that understanding, bring about a greater sense of well-being by learning to stand firmly within your own power confidently, purposefully and contently.

You may have heard the term Maya as an
attribute describing the superficial consciousness of and happenings in this
world as illusion. In the world of Maya, ego rules supreme and merely
battles and clashes with all it encounters in the fight for better/best,
etc. Ego judges, persecutes, attempts to steal what it already has,
competes for some superficial prize that doesn’t take one anywhere or give
anyone anything of lasting import. Spoiler Alert: There is no prize
for being better, best, right, stealing energy, giving it away or striving to
master illusions. What we get from this life is the richness or value of
our experiences rather than the experiences solely. If we maintain a
place of power, which is our right, we do not have to choose the world of
villains and victims whether or not others wish to exist in those worlds and
believe in those frameworks. You can live your life in fear or worry or
you can choose not to.

I’m not saying any of this is
easy. I can’t even say I’ve done it all the time. I too am a student of this life but I do know a surely as I’m sitting here breathing
and typing away that I can feel it when I give my power away and I can feel it
when others try to take it from me. Psychology and lack of awareness runs
rampant in our world. It has been this way always. But some of us
who care to look can catch glimpses of the truth deep within us and take great
comfort in the knowing that it is we who choose to be energized or depleted, to
become victorious or defeated as we face each of the scenes of our lives we
have created for the challenge of the experience.

I suggest to you that despite how you
have lived and what you have experienced up to this point in your life, you can
make a choice to understand your beliefs, their origins and whether or not you
will continue to buy into them or not. You too can choose whether or not
you will stand in your power full of love and light or hand it over to the very
next person who demands it through manipulation or fear generating villain-like
postures. It’s all up to you.

In the midst of some of our darkest and
most challenging experiences, these little flashes of insight will come from
your soul and your spirit. Watch for these and expect them to show up for the purpose of
your truest and most reliable guidance. Steer clear of energy robbing
anger, frustration, fear, intimidation and all the other negatives as much as
you can. Do so through seeking understanding and choosing how you wish to
participate with such things in such a way where you hold yourself accountable
for neither doing yourself nor anyone else any intentional harm and you can
find and hold your power to you. If you give it away in fear of worry,
you cannot positively create. I can attest to this fact. If you
hold it with the knowing, trust or faith in yourself as a Source-Connected
miracle of energetic existence, you have half the battle of dealing with the
challenges you face won. You can then step back a bit and observe what
you might have wanted to glean from the experiences you go through. The
self-love you do hold in the heart of your soul knows that you established
experiences for much higher reasons than reinforcing your weaknesses. The
heart of you knows that you created experiences to rediscover your strengths and learn to transcend that which no longer serves you.

It’s a huge leap sometimes to go from
fearful to courageous. So, start with one little step instead and that
very simple step begins with curiosity. Be curious rather than
assumptive, judgmental or resorting to persecution, blame or vengeance.
You’ll feel much better about your experiences in the end because then you are
moving in tune with your soul as well as your spirit that has a much longer-lasting impact than the
superficial pursuits of the ego. Speaking from experience, when
your heart stops and your consciousness goes on, the things the egoic little "c" aspect of consciousness thinks are
important here on Earth do NOT come with you. What does come with you is
the love you held inside (as an intrinsic aspect of the Big "C" Consciousness), the compassion you experienced, the awe, wonder and
beauty of your experiences comes with you and nothing more. Okay, for
some maybe regret comes too but if you are alive right now and reading this
then there is plenty of time for you to shift your thinking. Do it
today. You have the power within you and all the love in the Universe
behind you and to support you. ~Blessings of infinite love and light.

JMCC

About the Journal of Metaphysics and Connected Consciousness

The Journal of Metaphysics and Connected Consciousness provides original content from contributors in the fields of Metaphysics, Philosophy, Spirituality and Consciousness Studies. The Journal also welcomes articles from other disciplines that focus on our themes of interest. The founder's belief is that through a multidisciplinary approach to the exploration of life and Consciousness, we can all come to greater understanding of our place in existence and increase the health and well-being of humanity.

Contributors retain copyrights to their works while being afforded the opportunity to share their knowledge through the publication of articles with a wide audience. This is a peer reviewed journal. To view our contributors, please visit the Bio's page or for submission guidelines, please visit the our Guidelines page.

This journal is edited by Reverend J.L. Harter, Ph.D, founder of The Ministry of Connected Consciousness and the Journal of Metaphysics and Connected Consciousness and Dr. Liam Leonard (editor, author and publisher). You can contact the editor at jaiehart@gmail.com.

Volume I in Print

Volume II in Print

Follow by Email

Followers

Please Note:

The views expressed by our wonderful contributors are not necessarily the views of the Journal of Metaphysics and Connected Consciousness or The Ministry of Connected Consciousness. They are presented here for your information and for your contemplation. Nothing expressed herein should take the place of common sense or the need for you to research and validate your own beliefs or the information presented (which the contributing founder hopes you will do).